What’s to lose at this point?

Don Berliner, former NICAP investigator and director of the mostly dormant Fund For UFO Research, has some ideas on how to jump-start a sober re-evaluation of The Great Taboo that doesn’t involve new research: Declassify all the Project Blue Book files (yes, some are still censored more than 40 years later), assemble a team of independent credentialed scientists to render evaluations on the true unknowns, case by case, and air them out in the contemporary public arena. No doubt the effort would run into some bucks, but the cases would come from official government files. And non-government panelists wouldn’t likely shy away from criticizing the slipshod work of another federal agency.

De Void rarely features guest bloggers, but at 84, Berliner merits some space here, meager though it be. So here’s Don:

Why not use original government data to get it right the second time around?/CREDIT: paranormalknowledge.com

For the past several decades, the private UFO community hasn’t moved one inch closer to solving the greatest mystery of the past century. Even worse, we’ve lost almost all our ability to influence the opinions of members of the scientific community, the mainstream media and most of the governments of the world.

We reached our peak in the mid-1960’s when the 14,000-member National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), under the inspired leadership of Donald Keyhoe and Richard Hall, had established highly effective relationships with those vital elements of our society. The media, in particular, regularly came to NICAP for facts and guidance. Today, with two national organizations each collecting more than 500 UFO/UAP reports a month, it would be hard to find a reporter who has any clue that such is happening, with the result being that the public has no idea that strange craft are still being seen.

NICAP’s facts were produced by the highly qualified and experienced members of carefully selected investigative sub-committees who went out into the field to find out what had actually happened, not to reinforce anyone’s preconceived opinions nor to add to anyone’s collection of allegedly unexplained events.

There are changes that can be made to improve the situation:

1. Get rid of “UFO”, which to most people means “flying saucer,” and that means alien spacecraft. In other words, “UFO” is a conclusion, when it should be no more than a starting point. A replacement is ready and waiting: “UAP,” meaning Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. Many of the scientists in the private UFO community have been using this for years.

2. Get rid of “Ufology” and “Ufologist,” which strongly imply that the collecting of information and the subsequent study of it constitute a science. It will remain no more than a hobby until we make drastic changes in the way we view the subject and our own involvement.

3. While we’re at it, let’s add “sincere” to our list of words to be dropped. The category of people most needing to be considered sincere is “con-artist.” And while we certainly aren’t suggesting that more than an occasional sighting witness deserves to be in that group, using it to describe someone who hasn’t been subjected to an extensive background investigation is passing judgement on the basis of emotion, rather than logic.

4. Stress the need for field investigators having advanced educations and/or practical experience in appropriate scientific fields. By including hobbyists and “saucer fans,” we are actively discouraging the participation of the very people we need most. Imagine a curious scientist joining a field investigation, only to find himself working alongside someone who is in serious danger of flunking freshman chemistry. The scientist won’t be back, while the marginal student will.

5. Forget about trying to influence the U.S. Congress as a way to force the release of a large quantity of withheld government information. Members of Congress lack both the will and the motivation needed to risk their jobs over an issue that promises little beyond embarrassment. Let’s face it: one of the easiest ways to replace a sitting member is to accuse him of believing in flying saucers. He or she may be able to withstand personal attacks based on financial or sexual misconduct, but not on something viewed by peers as suggesting a serious lack of common sense.

6. Start using the Hynek “Strangeness/Credibility Scale” to pin-point UFO/UAP reports having the potential for adding to the accumulated knowledge of UFOs/UAPs. Cramming filing cabinets with sightings of meandering night lights amounts to nothing more than wasting time on trivia. It is the quality of cases that will eventually pay off, not the quantity.

7. Perhaps the biggest step we can take in the near-term is to stop behaving like the mystery has been solved and all that remains is to lay out the evidence for the ignorant masses to absorb. In fact, the UFO mystery has not been solved, nor will it be until we have acquired proof, not merely debatable evidence. Just because we haven’t been able to come up with logical, non-alien explanations for hundreds of baffling cases doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. Maybe we have overlooked something subtle that could change the picture.

Just what will constitute proof?

1. Clear, sharp photographs that can be scientifically verified and which show sufficient detail so that they could not possibly be of anything terrestrial.

2. Government documents that can be scientifically confirmed as original (not photocopies), and which include specific information whose authenticity can be checked.

3. Physical evidence such as obviously unusual debris from one or more crashes, whose origins can be traced with confidence and whose properties do not resemble anything found on Earth. The professional scientists or scientific organizations doing the analyses must be willing to sign their names to any reports.

We aren’t going to get any of the above by sending out “saucer fans” to interview people who claim to have seen funny lights. We have to start taking the mystery as a serious challenge, and not as entertainment or a way to attract attention to ourselves.

24 comments on “What’s to lose at this point?”

Great article & I agree 100%. It’s a travesty that “ufology” in all the years of investigation, have learned nothing directly about the phenomena since the 60’s. These groups go after governments who must surely “know these UAP are aliens”, the government knows these are aliens here to help promote us into the cosmic kindergarten. UAP maybe ET, but where’s the bloody evidence? I have heard it said that intelligence agencies have co-opted groups, in the early days this may have been correct, given the serious support organisations like NICAP & APRO had, but anyone wishing to discredit the UFO field or research community nowadays would not even bother. Why involve yourself in petty, provincial arguments on the credibility of cases or witnesses. I think research groups, secret in nature investigate UaP, this can be argued given witness testimony that tells of military types investigating cases only to find no official records through FOIA. But why would we assume they have the answer to a global problem? It maybe simply that our governments simply do not know what these things are, where they come from, what they are doing and how the hell they work! That is more scary to a government that knowing they are alien. What would they tell the public? For 60 odd years in recent UaP history, we know these things are real, physical, have properties & performance levels unattainable to us. They likely have loads of data, but may not know the origins.

@Mike: Some experiences are worth asking more questions about than others. Different incidents may be the result of different phenomena; do we ignore some, but not others? What questions do we ask before we relegate a particular mystery to the ‘too weird to be solved’ category?

So..after all these years..and even at one stage with 14,000 members..now is the time for change.?
Like changing some semantics will produce anything.!
And what, prey tell, would the desired “scientists” actually “study”.
How many new instrumental results/correlations will they find and measure.?
And lets pretend they do find background changes that correlate with the lights..and..???
That leads you nowhere.
The ufo subject has never been mechanistic/deterministic..and guys like Don Berliner still..after all these years..dont get it.
Its not a problem to be solved.
Its an enigma that can be experienced..
And nothing more..

I wonder if the level of observable, unusual activity was higher back in the days of NICAP, in order to account for the apparently greater degree of scientific membership (based on the claims of NICAP membership)? NICAP was highly visible and included some very high fliers in its ranks, and of course it was all voluntary, and the topic was new.
For balance I’ll admit its possible that all UFO/UAP activity could be the result of (as yet unidentified) non-intelligence based natural phenomena; but if some of these phenomena turn out to be related to intelligent ETs, then it’s quite likely that their behaviour is affected by our reaction to their presence. We might expect the quality and quantity of UFO sightings to vary over time. *IF* this is the case then UFO investigation becomes more of an intelligence gathering exercise than one of pure scientific enquiry.
(Btw, Nice to read some level-headed criticism from a new contributor, and an astronomer too.)

I commend Don for his enthusiasm, but I doubt his plan would work. You might guess from my handle what line of work I’m in, and let me assure you all that the Great Taboo is holding strong among our ranks. Bring it up over coffee and out come the snide comments and the “flying saucers don’t exist because they can’t exist” snide remarks, all said by scientists who have never read a book on UFOs or bothered to read declassified documents, let alone spoken to a witness.

Oh yes, the Great Taboo is healthy and strong, and is self imposed! No scientist is going to give up any time to go investigate UFO sightings because they know their next grant application will be denied. As soon as colleagues get wind of this, their career is over. If they are tenured professors, then maybe they’ll keep their jobs, but they’ll still be ostracised by their peers.

There’s also the matter of who will pay for all this. Even if you can convince people like me (honestly curious scientists who are not so cocky as to think they know it all) to spend 50% of our time on UFO duty, you’ll need to pay for 50% of my salary and benefits, plus travel expenses. Multiply this by the number of scientists you plan to use, and you quickly run into the millions of dollars a year. It ain’t cheap investigating the truth.

As for “Clear, sharp photographs that can be scientifically verified”, there’s no such thing in this day and age. Any photo that Dr Maccabee declares real, James Oberg will declare false, and the public will remain none the wiser.

If I sound too negative, it’s because you haven’t spoken to me in person, because then you *really* would think I’m negative about the future of Ufology. Oops! Shouldn’t use that word either!

It is a ponderable issue. _If_ there is ET technology involved, then their technology may well be more advanced than ours. What _is_ ‘advanced technology’, anyway, and where are our own secret projects on the scale of technological advancement? Is a ‘scientifically’ advanced civilization necessarily ‘socially’ or ‘morally’ advanced? Has our own technologically advanced civilization advanced socially, or morally?
.
Technological advancement doesn’t equal moral or social advancement, and the opposite could be argued. If ETs are just like us (which I suspect is the case), then we’re gonna need a lot of help, especially if the deus ex machina is more machina than deus.
.
હું જવા જ જોઈએ

@Purrlie: (Freemason?) It appears that we agree there is a PR problem. As for being naive about human nature, I can see why you think I am. But whatever mysteries and problems we are presented with, it is we humans who must find the solutions. Btw, what do think helps the roses to grow?

Freemason must live in a bubble if he believes the cacophony coming from crazies such as Steve Basset and Steve Greer doesn’t scare off serious journalists and scientists. Never mind that fairy tale rabbit hole called Roswell or the insane aliens/UFO crap promoted as serious documentaries (Ancient Aliens, for example) on SyFy, TLC, Discovery, NatGeo, The History Channel, etc. This is an unscalable mountain of PR bullish shite that continues to grab the public by the throat. People make money off of this horse excrement and they’re not going to give up without a tough fight. Freemason has a much more naive take on human nature than yours truly.

If any UAPs represent more advanced civilizations than ours, then we, as human beings, might well not be in control of the situation. The article, however, appears to be written from the assumption that we ARE in control and merely need to find and present proof of something alien to others in order to make real progress.

@Duff
I’m not sure I would regard the opinions of the ‘scientific community’ any more highly than those of any other group. They ‘know’ what they choose to know, just like any group. Take the skepti-bunker ‘scientists’. Their whole preoccupation consists of rejecting anything that doesn’t fit their ‘no ET’ paradigm, proffering absurd explanations for cases that have no explanations, belittling anyone who doesn’t accept their prattling on, etc. Sounds a lot like the behavior of the ‘True Believers’. Throw in alien abductions and cattle mutilations and you got a real mess.
.
Fact is, the whole UFO thing has degenerated into two polarized camps, and the serious and thoughtful observers are left out in the cold.
.
Frankly speaking, I don’t give a rat’s bum what either camp has to say, and I refuse to be placed in either one. Actually, TBs consider me a Skeptic, and Sceptics consider me a TB, so I guess I’m right where I want to be.
.
I don’t hold much hope for ‘scientists’ to be of any help, in that they are locked into well-entrenched paradigms, and seem to be unable to escape them. Despite all their pontificating about the ‘scientific method’, they as a group, are are every bit as opinionated as any other. They exist in a vacuum, praised and worshipped as giants, with credibility provided by pieces of paper on the wall, and research approved by the judgement of their peers.
.
Πρέπει να πηγαίνω…

You say the UFO community has lost its ability to “influence the opinions of the scientific community”. Well, I wonder why that might be? Is it because the scientific community wouldn’t freak out with rapture at the prospect of aliens visiting earth, or is it because they pretty much know that you believers have absolutely no evidence it has happened? Hmmmmm. Lets apply Occums Razor.

@Purrlie: Mainstream scientific enquiry and amateur investigation are not mutually exclusive (unless the scene of a specific incident is contaminated).
Why do you (or why does anyone) care what ‘true believers’ believe? It’s supposed to be a free world after all, and truth is unaffected by beliefs (and if it isn’t then reality is *really* interesting).
A true believer’s ‘resistance’ to rigourous scientific enquiry is inconsequential. (Does anyone know what the average Flat-Earther’s opinion is of the ETH?). Those of us interested in serious research find the PR problem to be one of the biggest hurdles, and the PR problem includes a disproportionate emphasis placed on ‘true believers’ by individuals such as yourself.

Berliner is definitely on the right track, but UFO true believers are as loathe to have UFOs seriously investigated as skeptics because their dearly held and unproven beliefs are likely to be shot down by a discovered truth far more complex and strange than bug-eyed gray midgets abducting emotionally unstable humans in the middle of the night. Kudos to Berliner, but his proposal will meet a wall of resistance . . . as much from UFO advocates who’ve already made up their minds about what UFOs represent as from a reluctant press and scientific community.

If wishes were horses…
Scientific organisations and journals are basically clubs that choose whether or not to admit specific applicants. NARCAP is the most obvious group that comes to mind that employs this type of discrimination. Such groups definitely fulfill a need.
However, even if a new event were to occur, one that drew the attention of the mainstream scientific community, then groups like MUFON are unlikely to close down in response. (MUFON’s business model now appears to be one of self-perpetuation first, investigation second.) And the early declassification of any previously classified case would be a near-miracle. In other words, we have to deal with the situation as it is, not what we might like it to be.
I take the opposite point of view to Mr Berliner. Ultimately, the answer may find us, before we find it. In which case it will have been the journey that proved to be important. Lets assume that the ETH is correct and Mr Berliner’s army of elite scientists obtain incontrovertible evidence. That would still leave us in the position of no formal contact.
Maybe inclusiveness is something we have yet to fully appreciate.

@Ginoshay
Not necessarily. The composition and structure of meteorites show that they are of extraterrestrial origin. We determined this without having to visit a meteor and take samples. It’s likely that pieces of an ET craft might certainly have “…properties that do not resemble anything found on Earth…”. This might even be possible to determine by merely looking at the object, before any scientific analysis is done. If such an object is found, that would “…constitute proof…”.
.
I might also point out that the composition and properties of ET-manufactured materials do not necessarily need to be different from those we have created.
.
This reminds me of the geneticist who did a DNA analysis of an ET whom he personally met in his saucer and took samples from. After reviewing the report, he concluded that the being was not of ET origin, because his DNA was identical to ours. {:-O>
.
Mi devas iri…

3. “Physical evidence such as obviously unusual debris from one or more crashes, whose origins can be traced with confidence and whose properties do not resemble anything found on Earth. The professional scientists or scientific organizations doing the analyses must be willing to sign their names to any reports.”

(He needs to lose the “anything found on earth” reference. You’ve already made a conclusion by using those words!)

Billy again hits one outa da park. Thanks!
.
Dons proposals are serious and thoughtful. ‘Serious’ and ‘thoughtful’ are not words normally applied to, or associated with, the MSM, skepti-bunkers, politicians, and nutters.
.
You can’t do this sort of research on a shoestring budget. Labs and scientist/consultants need to be paid for their time. Skepti-bunkers aren’t interested in research; they come into the picture after the initial research is done, and criticize it, or, failing that, propose other mundane explanations. (I’ve never heard one say: “I can’t explain it, but it’s definitely not extra-terrestrial.”:)
.
I understand a scientists reluctance to avoid the subject completely, but if confronted with credible, analyzable evidence, some may become interested. There are a lot of social issues to overcome. I believe such issues are the primary problem in this field.
.
While we’re at it, let’s distinguish between ‘bad science’ and ‘no science’ cases. Most sightings come under the ‘no science’ heading. This includes most videos/photos. I usually don’t even bother with ‘lights in the sky’ videos. They were unknowns when shot, and most will remain unknowns (not including obvious hoaxes). Scientific analysis, by an expert, may reveal a hoax, but most of the time, there’s not enough information to make any real determination. Under cursory examination, a photo/video usually indicates, by its quality, the likelihood of confirmation by scientific analysis, even then, it’s often a game of probabilities. (Whether the probability of rain is 20% or 90%, it’s either gonna rain, or not rain). Is that shaky, blurry, orange light identifiable? Could it be of ET origin? We’ll never know.
.
‘Bad science’. One example IIRC, the doctor who ‘analyzed’ RF emissions from an implant (‘alleged’ is assumed). I’m an engineer, and I can tell you, you need a special shielded room, very expensive RF analyzers, and a great deal of experience to properly analyze RF emissions. It is close to impossible to find a location on the Earths surface that isn’t flooded with RF radiation. Any RF analysis not done under lab conditions is worthless.
.
Similar caveats apply to photo/video analysis. Make and model of the camera/lens system is critical, as well as location, azimuth, altitude, weather, and exact time of day. Modern digital cameras provide a lot of data, and the other parameters are trivial to provide. It seems to me that most folks don’t realize the importance of this information, so some basic education is in order. Some folks refuse to provide _any_ data. I’m comfortable with applying the term ‘hoax’ to those cases.
.
Jeg skal gå…